Please look to last week's "Desecrations of Translations" before you read this.
11) I Timothy 1:10 NIV for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
NKJV for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine
The term “sodomy” or “sodomites” appears in KJV many times in the Old Testament, always as a terrible sin (such as Deuteronomy 23:17 or I Ki 14:24). But for our purposes, I picked I Timothy 1:10 as my example. The NKJV has a slight disadvantage, because the term “sodomites” might be hard to understand. (Not used in today’s language. Also, does it include any other sex act besides homosexuality?) The Greek word here is closest to “homosexuals.” That word is easy to understand. So we conclude the NIV has the right word, a better choice. But I do have a word of caution; the NIV has a different sexual flaw: they substitute “shrine prostitutes” for “sodomites” in the Old Testament. Maybe that works, IF you know what the sexual practices were for a shrine prostitute. Lots of homosexuality. (In Greek and Roman days, homosexuality was rampant.) A reader unfamiliar with that fact gets nothing out of “shrine prostitutes” but more likely gets something out of “sodomites,” if he’s thinking right. So the NIV gets it right in the New Testament, but closer to wrong in the Old Testament. Homosexuality, in any event, is a grievous sin, and needs to be emphasized as subject to God’s punishment. PS: I’m not ignoring the fact that prostitutes are sinful.
12) Luke 1:15 NIV for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit “ before he is born” (NIV 2011) OR “ even from birth” (NIV 1984)
NKJV For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.
Some NIV translators of 1984 suggested John the Baptist had to wait for these qualities until after he was born. I guess the translator couldn’t imagine a baby in a womb imbibing fermented drink (unless mom had indulged). Or getting slapped with the Holy Spirit in the womb. Then, surprise of surprises, the NIV 2011 translation switched and got it right, saying the baby in the womb could be filled with the Holy Spirit. Why not? Didn’t John the Baptist leap in celebration in the womb when his mother met Mary, mother of Jesus, who was pregnant (Luke 1:41)? I think even the prophet Samuel had that in the womb. He came out of his mom bristling with holiness and confrontation that it seems he had it earlier--from day “minus 260.” He probably preached in the womb—though the light was poor to read his notes. The NIV 1984 might be refusing to admit that anything happens in the womb—maybe they don’t want to think about the womb. Would that be a condescension to the abortionists? Also, the NIV gets revised way too frequently —six times in the last 33 years. So who knows what they will change in the next 5 years?
But the NKJV has it right, “from his mother’s womb.” There’s no difficulty defining Greek words; you just have to have the courage to abide by “every word” translation. Not “cultural” translation.
13) Matthew 1:25 NIV But he (Joseph) did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
NKJV …and (Joseph) did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.
The problem here is with the lazy rendition of the NIV, simply “son.” Let’s speak the whole truth: firstborn Son. A firstborn son is treated special and has special benefits in the Jewish culture. And, Son should be capitalized. Jesus deserves those.
14) Far more serious is Luke 2:33. Per the NIV: The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him
NKJV And Joseph and His mother marveled at those things which were spoken of Him
If any reader was uncertain about whether Joseph was the father, he gets the wrong idea from the NIV. At least the NKJV implies that Joseph is not the father. We talked at length on the theological importance of why the Holy Spirit is Jesus’ father in Part 1 about Isaiah 7:14. This is a continuation of the same perverted theme the modernists like. They’re saying, “Mary had sex with Joseph or some man. Not the supernatural, Holy Spirit stuff. Let’s remove the supernatural, even if it knocks down fundamental beliefs, the kind necessary to be saved.” But God is a God of supernatural, especially in Jesus’s birth narratives.
15) Luke 4:4 NIV Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread. (That’s the whole verse)
NKJV But Jesus answered him, saying, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’ ”
Why would we leave out “but by every word of God?” The modernists don’t like living by the Word of God? They don’t believe there is one?
16) John 6:47 NIV Very truly I tell you, the one who believes, has eternal life
NKJV Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes [a]in Me has everlasting life
Surely this NIV “Gospel” is the shortest requirement to be saved that I’ve ever seen. It looks like you can believe ANYTHING and get eternal life. Fortunately, the NKJV has added belief “in Me (Jesus).” (There have been some fancy dances as to what “belief” in Jesus really is.) The Bible is not designed as a book of theology, but it’s obvious from reading Paul and James of what real “belief” in Jesus is. PS: Note the letter “a” next to “in Me” in the 1982 NKJV. They included a little note at the bottom that ‘in Me’ should be deleted. The term is not included in their pair of “original” translations, they say. Uh-oh, this warped idea crept into a “note” in the NKJV, a step in the wrong direction. Actually, things are worse; it is a known and surprising fact that the “New” King James has omitted 16 New Testament verses in total by 1982. At that rate, there won’t BE any New Testament 113 translation changes from now (but how many years for that? Less than you think! Getting back to the NIV, it has revised itself six times in 33 years. Way to make money, publishers!)
17) I John 4:3 NIV but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus, is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
NKJV and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world
The NIV omits “come in the flesh.” Yet, that very thing, denying that Christ came in the flesh, is called “antichrist,” as the NKJV verse defines it. Still, the NIV did exactly that, refusing to say Christ was come in the flesh! They did it in that verse that says it was wrong! What cohones! They are hiding the fact that they LIKE that idea. That idea was Gnosticism, an early heresy. (And having another go-round in the modern translations.) Their belief was, the “Spirit of Christ” (pure and non-material) was a separate entity from Jesus (a sinful man of flesh). They got this by claiming that there were two “gods” originally; the evil god had physical matter, the spiritual god does not. If you have flesh, you have to be corrupt—the only way to be pure is to be only a spirit. So, they figure, Jesus was a regular sinful boy and man, then took on a pure “Spirit of Christ” from the time of His baptism to leaving Him at His death. Thus “Jesus” was sinful, not born of a virgin, and there was no resurrection. (This is another of the reasons we insist the Holy Spirit was Jesus’ father—so as not be born with a sin nature, as with the rest of mankind.) The Gnostics took great pains to separate the two words “Jesus” “Christ.” Because the word “Jesus” (a sinful man) is different from “Christ” (a separate being, a pure Spirit of Christ). Their splitting of the two words is evident in modern translations like I John 4:3 and in 80 or so texts where they separate the two words, or simply drop off one or the other. The NIV is sneaking in an old heresy.
The second flaw in the NIV here is defining false belief as “not acknowledging Jesus.” Well, how weak in the belief system is the puerile word “acknowledge” Jesus? Such an idea says your belief can be just believing in His history and morality. All you have to say to “acknowledge” Him is ‘Yes, I believe he lived. He was a good man.’ Don’t forget, the demons acknowledged Jesus! But that didn’t save them. Their works said they were evil. Anyway, “acknowledge” is poor wording, and doesn’t get anybody saved.
18 & 19) Matthew 17:21 (and Mark 9:29) NKJV However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.
NIV The verses are GONE!
Why are Matthew 17:21 an Mark 9:29 gone? Well, the subject is casting out demons—which Jesus does a lot of. Modernists probably get uncomfortable just on that, and maybe don’t believe in demons or demonology, or exorcism. Nor do they want to divulge details so we might hope we could do it too, if the need arises. Granted, trying this is not for amateurs, but avoiding the subject totally is not the answer either. If you don’t believe demons can exist in people anymore, ask the homicide police about that.
20) Mathew18:11 NKJV For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.
NIV Gone!
Again, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus deleted a wonderful verse, that didn’t offend anybody. We should all be reminded that the penalty is eternally severe for those who add, subtract, or change God’s Word. I am speaking of Revelation 22:18ff:
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life
So it will go for those who produced these heretical versions.
21) Matthew 23:14 NKJV Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation
NIV GONE
Uh, we’re not saving this one, perhaps, because it’s antisemitic? Because we want to be nice to the Pharisees, the guys who led the killing of Jesus? Why? Searching.
22) Same “goner” with I John 5:7 NKJV For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
This verse is unique because nowhere else does the Trinity get set clearly forth. Wiping this fundamental verse out is putting a big hole in good doctrine.
23) Mark 16:9-20 KJNV Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.12 After that, He appeared in another form to two of them as they walked and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it to the rest, but they did not believe them either.14 Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who [b]believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they[c] will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”19 So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 20 And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen
Modern versions: Gone or isolated, separated from the Bible.
This great summary of Jesus’s activities after His resurrection, to His ascension, is ever to be cherished. But not in the eyes of modernists. Why? Because, perhaps, they don’t even believe in the Resurrection? Or perhaps they don’t believe in the spectacular lives of the early Christian church beginning in v. 17—casting out demons? Speaking in tongues? Taking up serpents, or drinking up poison? They might say, “no way.” Well, I believed it happened, as noted elsewhere in Scripture. Either way of their unbelief, if so, they are on their way to hell. And the guys that picked these philistines for the job of translation, if they knew their lack of belief ahead of time, should go there too. Boy, I hope there is a revival in “old timey” verses and we force the publishers to get conservative on “modernizing,” and bring these verses back. Maybe the best we could do currently would be, not to buy a modern Bible. Get on a Bible bookstore and buy your non-modern Scripture there, even if used.
24) John 5:2-6 RSV Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool…3 In these lay a multitude of invalids, blind, lame, paralyzed 5 One man was there, who had been ill for thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him and knew that he had been lying there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be healed?
John 5:2-6 NKJV 2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches. 3 In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water. 4 For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had. 5 Now a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he already had been in that condition a long time, He said to him, “Do you want to be made well?”
Did you see the difference? Verse 4 is gone in RSV. Modernists considered v. 4 (though it appeared in all real Greek texts) a foolish superstition, and didn’t want to embarrass the Bible with it—so they just threw it away.
25) John 8:3-11 NKJV Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear .7So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
John 8:3-11 NIV has the same idea and modern words, BUT they isolate the entire group, and essentially give the reader the choice of whether to accept it as God’s Word. Perhaps modernists don’t like how Jesus readily forgave the woman (the guilty man is never challenged). But note how Jesus clearly calls the adultery sinful. Perhaps He saw her repentant heart, since He could read her mind.
26) Luke 23:34 NKJV Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”
Luke 23:34 NASB [[o]But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”] The note “o” explains it as “Most early MSS do not contain this.” They put it in brackets to make their point even more clear. Unfortunately, the same letter is used by the NASB to put doubts in our mind about v.17, where Pilate, at the holiday, was obligated to release a prisoner (later, he gave them Jesus or Barabbas, their choice—they chose wrong!) In any event, creating doubts in our minds about the infallibility of Scripture, did not phase the modernists from doing this. I guess they figured no regular man (their thinking of Him?) could actually say that, under such intense pain and persecution. Presumably Jesus should have cursed them? Would that “Be a man?”
27) Acts 8 beginning with v.28 is the story of the Ethiopian eunuch, to whom Philip preached about Jesus. Then they ride in a carriage and come across water. The eunuch says in effect, “can I be baptized?” Verse 37 presents Philip’s clear answer in the NKJV: Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may. But that verse is omitted by modern versions. Considering that modern versions come from disputed Catholic sources, and since the verse explains that you shouldn’t be baptized unless you believe in Jesus, the Catholic tradition would be against letting this verse slide. ’Jettison it’ they say. And it was. Simple as that.
28) One more omission story. Of the 54 times that “hell” appeared the KJV, the modern versions eliminated 41 of them. (The NKJV actually eliminates 22 of them). ‘Why the severe cutback?’ some ask. Well, modern translations might have the right idea here. You see, Tynedale, who created the first modern English text, and was part of the Received Text, had a problem with “hell.” There were 3 Greek words that he called “hell.” But the only real Hell is from the Greek Gehenna. The Greek Hades, on the other hand, is the temporary place of the dead which (as I believe) saved and unsaved go as they wait for the rapture (I have another blog based on Jesus’ doctrine in His story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16). Finally, there is Sheol, which is really the grave. So most of them were not Hell. Modern versions reduced this overuse, which we give them credit for. (I particularly don’t like “sheol” as a substitute for hell. Nobody knows what it means.) PS: I suspect the modernists probably would like all 54 hells to be gone.
This is the last of the disappearing verses. The list is too long.
My last words help prove that God anointed the original King James Bible. The proof is, shall we say, in the numbers. I only have enough room to stir your interest. Overall, these are magical connections that only appear in the King James. Here we go.
The word “Jehovah” for God is used (with Jireh, with Nissi, as well) 7 times only in the KJV. Seven is the number of perfection. Did you know that the latest version of the NKJV has NONE of these? I am clueless as to why. The phrase “Word of God” is in the KJV 49 times, or 7x7. The words “Holy Spirit” is used 7 times in the KJV. Finally, the phrase ‘Son of Man’ is a divine term that perked up the Pharisees’ accusation of Jesus of blasphemy. (See Matthw 26;63-65.) How do we know that Jesus Christ is the Son of Man? They both occur 196 times—only happens in the King James Bible. And that, of course, is 28 times—guess what? 7. There are more, but I have spent enough time on this fascinating subject.
GLOSSARY of Bible Translations
ASV American Standard Version
CSB Christian Standard Bible
ESV English Standard Version
NASB New American Standard Bible
NEB New English Bible
NIV (used as substitute for different modern versions) New International Version
KJV King James Version
NKJV New KJV (some of these versions have been revised on different dates)
RSV Revised Standard Version
No comments:
Post a Comment